Friday, November 02, 2007

This is the latest essay from the British author Paul Weston, whom I had the pleasure to meet and toast last month in Brussels.

The Coming Third World Warby Paul Weston

When Francis Fukuyama wrote The End of History and the Last Man in 1993, it was to argue that Western liberal democracy and free market economics meant an end to warfare within the west, and by default, the end of history.

Fukuyama was drawing on Winston Churchill, who stated: “The history of man is war”, thus allowing Fukuyama to propose that a future consisting of perpetual peace meant an end to history itself, history being simply a narrative of warfare, conquest and re-conquest, rather than which queen succeeded which king and on which date.

This idea that warfare within the West is now a thing of the past seems to be shared by an overwhelming section of Western people, reared as they are on a diet of enlightened tolerance and historical ignorance.

In 1990 it would have been relatively difficult to argue with Fukuyama’s prophecy. The West, excluding the inevitable frictions that came with the break up of the Soviet Union, was clearly not going to engage in the type of politics that led to the two world wars, whilst the demise of Communism meant an end to the global proxy wars between Russia and America.

What Fukuyama failed to realise, however, was that the ingredient for yet another “war to end all wars” was already in place. The cultural clashes between fascism, communism and liberal democracies had simply been replaced with another culture that would inevitably clash with the Western host cultures — Islam.

Wars do not simply spring out of nowhere. Although the causes may be relatively complicated, they require only a few very basic ingredients which when blended together, placed in a pressure cooker on gas level 5, and left to boil unattended, can have only one result.

The first of these, self evidently, is an enemy, without which a chef cannot even begin to prepare his feast gastronomique. Some may argue that Islam is not our enemy; such an entity being radical Islam, a relatively small component of Islam overall. Possibly so, but this rather misses the point that Western liberal democracy is Islam’s enemy, as they tell us over and over again, through word and deed.

The death and destruction wrought throughout the West in recent years is not because Islam, in some childlike, well-intentioned yet misguided way, wishes to assimilate with us, it is because Islam wishes to take us over. We, obviously, do not wish to be taken over, so we must be prepared to resist an enemy, or be prepared to submit to an enemy, the point being that there is, with absolute certainty, an enemy.- - - - - - - - -The fact that it is radical Islam as opposed to moderate Islam is immaterial. In WWII Germany was our enemy, not the Nazis, just as Islam is our enemy today and not radical Islam. I am sorry to have to say this, but war entails polarisation of differing races/religions; the pieties of multiculturalism are reserved only for times of peace.

The second ingredient for war is anger and resentment amongst a unified mass majority. Despite the breadth of difference between Christian, post-Christian, Jew, agnostic, atheist, male, female, homosexual and heterosexual, the common thread that unites the people of the liberal West is no longer what we are, but what we are not. We are not Islamic, and — voluntarily — never will be.

And we are getting angrier by the day as we watch the television news, read the newspapers and listen to Islamic rhetoric calling for the overthrow of the West; a call apparently supported by our ruling elites who choose to clamp down on their indigenous people who dare to complain, rather than the perpetrators themselves.

Despite the best efforts of the vast state-funded race relations industry, the glaring evidence suggests one stark, unpalatable fact; Islam and the liberal West are incompatible. The utopian multiculturalist view that we can all get along is belied by the fact that as Islam keeps on trying to blow us up, so “Islamophobia” continues, quite naturally, to grow.

When police chiefs speak of “heightened racial tensions” (and in the case of France “low-level civil war”) they speak volumes about our current predicament. When Islam moves into an area and the indigenous inhabitants move out, this too speaks volumes. We do not — indeed apparently cannot — co-exist, a parlous state of affairs even whilst Westerners have the means and the territory to move away, but what happens when that escape route is removed?

Unfortunately, the birth rate differentials coupled with massive Muslim immigration and growing indigenous emigration suggest that this escape route is only temporary. Many European cities are on the brink of Muslim majorities already; within the next twenty years this will only escalate with increasing rapidity. At some point in the not too distant future, Europeans will have nowhere left to run.

Just as Islam is intransigently opposed to Western liberal democracy, so Western liberal democracy is intransigently opposed to Islam. The West in the case of “within borders” religious conflict is a demographic juggernaut compared to Islam today, but this can change very quickly as I argued in part 1 of a recent article. Within twenty years we will see two juggernauts of equal size, travelling in opposite directions on the same side of the road with the all too obvious result: collision circa 2025 or earlier, depending on their speed.

And it is as simple as that. Western Europe in 1990 did not have the ingredients necessary to bring about another war, but in 2007 we have the only ingredients necessary to ensure it. Two intransigent enemies, one demographically shrinking, the other demographically — and literally — exploding, both sides drawing their lines in the sand, and of course the simmering anger, fear and resentment that comes with such a scenario.

This situation reminds me of A E Housman’s words, describing the year 1914:

Europe is a powder keg. The Germans are gripped by fervent nationalism, the British feel afraid of German expansion….the French still remember the bitter defeat of 1870. Germany enters into a pact with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but that empire is being torn apart by ethnic tensions and it will take just one spark to ignite a European war on an unimaginable scale…

Plus ça change plus c’est la meme chose, as they once said over a game of chess and chain-lit gauloises in the avant garde cafes of the Paris banlieus. History repeats itself, a fact not lost on the realists of the “right”, but lost in the fluffy mists of time to the liberal/left.

Perhaps a more recent quote might jolt them from their multicultural reverie, taken from Alastair Finlan’s book The Collapse of Yugoslavia 1991-1999 which details the civil war that killed 250,000 people, the majority of whom were civilians, out of a population of 10 million.

In 1991, almost overnight, an ethnically diverse region that had enjoyed decades of peaceful coexistence descended into bitter hatred and chaos. Communities fractured along lines of ethnic and religious affiliation and the resulting fighting was deeply personal, resulting in brutality, rape, torture, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Yugoslavia was a small country, and the death toll would have been much higher were in not for the intervention of external forces. Continental Europe has close to half a billion inhabitants. Should war start, there is no way on earth that any external force can stop it. And it need not be constrained to Europe; would a nuclear-armed Pakistan sit idly by? Will Iran or Syria possess a nuclear capability and would they use it against Israel? Would America then become involved? Would our need for oil necessitate the invasion of the Middle East? How would Turkey respond to that?

Unlike the First World War, given our nuclear weapons, this really could be the war to end to all wars.

Such an apocalyptic scenario should give the liberal/left pause for thought. Is such a possibility really worth this peculiar multicultural experiment of forcing two disparate cultures together, in a perverse attempt to prove history (and present day reality around the non-Western world) wrong?

Even the most vacuous multiculturalist would have to admit that religious war is a possibility, but what percentage chance would he admit to? Suppose it was only 1% — is that a risk worth taking? My only question to him would be “would you fly on a passenger jet that had a 1% chance of crashing, and if you would not, why do you think it acceptable that your children will inherit Armageddon based on a statistical chance of death that you yourself would not take?”

The completely unknown Serbian, Gavrilo Princip, provided the spark that ignited the First World War when he assassinated the Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand in the little-known town of Sarajevo on June 28th, 1914.

In the Europe of 2007 the ingredients for the Third World War are in place, save for Islamic demographics, an issue rapidly being addressed. Will it be a Dwayne Sproat or an Achmed Al-bubba acting as the present day Gavrilo Princip who sparks it?

23
comments:

The saddest thing here is that I truly wonder if "multiculturalism" could really have actually worked! I think whole elements of what it's woolly-minded adherents have always wanted could very well have been acheived, and this conflict (currently low-level now, future ???) could have been avoided entirely unnder a multi-cultural... um ... regime, for lack of a better word.

And why didn't it?

For one absolute overall reason - The utter, relentless, unceasing loathing and abhorrance of the multi-culti's for a society that they live and will NEVER NEVER bother to leave. Their disgraceful, disgusting, downright mean hatred of Western Civilization itself.

Remove that hatred, and you have a lot of people willing to welcome Muslims and others, and willing to stand up for Western values and societies, and do the sometimes hard and sometimes easy work of blending the two.

But they never even tried, did they? They simply attacked that they loathed, allied with the most misogynistic, homophobic, racist, totalitarian movements out there of whatever stripe, and figured they would raze all to the ground and re-build on the ruins that they would undoubtedly rule. After all, they are the smartest.

Multiculturalism has been crowned -- an existential threat to the world.

I wouldn't be suprised that all it will take to start this WWIII would be a poignant cartoon after a terrorist attack when the ummah is feeling particularly "ostracised." Not even a real assassination this time. Just a character assassination on a man already dead, or who perhaps never lived.

I tried to sell a book proposal after Fukuyama's title came out, to be called "THE OTHER END OF HISTORY", mocking his naivete and lame 'historicism', using the endless potential for development by the human brain/mind (especially since it can now re-engineer our given genetic material) to demonstrate the self-crippling folly of his thesis.

Got polite refusals, because no one at the time seemed to be able to see any audience for such open-ended "optimism".

All "goalposts" are optical illusions in a living system, since the field itself is constantly growing.

Previous purveyors of this kind of End Times mythos have also declared that "there are no more great inventions to be discovered" (circa 1900), "no more frontiers" to be found (circa 1950), and, every time, their defeatest barriers have been broken.

Just as "the end-of-ingenuity"- which the the incandescent light and wirless radio seemed to herald- fell to the silent and then talking pictures, television and computers and lasers and LCD's, or as crude propellor-driven flight fell to the jet and rocket and nuclear propulsion, ad infinitum.

Trying to put a living creature in such intellectual bottles always ends with the glass bursting as the being unexpectedly expands.

We are built from infinity, and these feeble attempts to confine us are always laughable and short-sighted examples of the spiritual ennui and crippled lack of imagination of their authors.

And understand that "history" is a cage or a ladder, depending on the cunning of the artisan.

We are currently entering into a New Age of Religious Warfare, sadly, as throwbacks from a medieval mindset, (who have survived by the decency and generosity of their less brutal neighbors) now resume their 1300 year old imperialistic assault on liberty and human dignity.

Once this tyrannical impulse is defeated, the upward and outward movement of our history can resume.

Well, I for one welcome WWWIII rather than sit by and see our traditional way of life give way to Islamic doctrine. It doesn't even have to be WWWIII, as long as the bastards in Brussels are stopped, - in a few years time. With the centralization of the EU it would prove easier to overthrow the regime which is selling out our continent, than if each country has its own pc multi-culti sovereign government. The centralization of the EU will be its undoing if push comes to shove. I wouldn't be surprised if an angry mob of thousands storm the EU offices in a few years time and does a bloody coup. Viva La Europe au Naturel!

People, and society, need a purpose, a reason for living. We in the U.S. and Western Europe have really not had one since the fall of the USSR. So, we have floundered around, directionless, and let the granola-eating, kumbaya crowd preach their self-hatred. All the while there is another group that very much has a "purpose". I think before too long the muslims may give the West a new purpose, called survival.

"Despite the breadth of difference between Christian, post-Christian, Jew, agnostic, atheist, male, female, homosexual and heterosexual, the common thread that unites the people of the liberal West is no longer what we are, but what we are not."

Key being `no longer` - sort of ("we" no longer have a government policy of executing, say, Jews - at least, not for about a half-century). Yes, Islam as a whole (not just radical groups) is threatening, but the radicals seem to be losing ground wherever they do not (as they do in Gaza or Iran: Saudi Arabia?) control government. Change takes time, and I remain optimistic that another thirty years will see change - albeit it may well continue to require use of force as well as diplomacy.

OTOH, it took all-out war, not dialogue or smaller engagements of force, to stop most previous belligerents. So my optimism may be out of line.

We're at the edge of defeating the very Invention of Death (devised by Life to spur on our organismic laziness) with discoveries like the SIR2 gene work and telomere research, so this entire idiotic distraction (by the moronic Mohammedan menace) from our vital and fascinating work, is mindbogglingly absurd and tedious.

But, I'm sure good will come out of the struggle, as all battles stimulate ingenuity.

Our greatest edge over this humorless opponent is our ability to see the ridiculous in things.

Bert Rustle, thanks for the link to the Enoch Powell speech. I had no idea there were important speeches by him on immigration available somewhere, made after the Rivers of Blood speech. But next time, please use the html link format (replace square brackets by triangular ones): [a href="http://yourlinkhere.com"]highlightedtext[/a]Otherwise, a long link address does not show up well.

Please don't paste long URLs into the comments; they make the post page too wide and mess up the appearance of the permalink page.

Use link tags; the instructions are at the top of the full post's comment section.

--------------------------

Bert Rustle said...

You may be interested to know that the Guardian CIF apparently has the speech given by the Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Powell, MP, to a meeting of the Stretford Young Conservatives at the Civic Theatre, Stretford, Manchester at 8pm, Friday, 21 January 1977; entitled "The Road to National SuicideImmigration, The Public Interest And The 'Uniform of Color'"

Brilliant piece of work, Mr. Weston. This is the most clearly reasoned analysis of why we are at war with Islam that I have yet read. I now hope that more people that read it can get their heads out of the sand and start packing that sand into bags; the storm is moving towards us.

Druu222 said:"The saddest thing here is that I truly wonder if "multiculturalism" could really have actually worked!"

Multiculturalism could ONLY work IF it were allowed to function exactly as the name suggests: "the preservation of different cultures, or cultural identities, within a unified society, as a state or nation." Emphasis on "unified."

However, multiculturalism as we know it (e.i. a typical product of the left) is strictly one-sided and biased. It's more a White Man vs. Non-White Man thing, in which the White Man plays the part of (or is forced to play the part of) The Villain, whereas the Non-White Man is the Poor Victim, oppressed and hated by the evil White Man. Based on this premise, the Non-White Man cannot, under any circumstance, be criticized. Any criticism, any objection to non-white foreign faith, customs, and culture (no matter how alien and even damaging to our own culture they may be) is considered racist, bigoted, or worse.

In his book "White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era," Shelby Steel explains the white guilt phenomenon (much more eloquently than I, of course).

This is why Islamofascism (e.i. Islamic terrorism) has made so much in-road into Western countries, England being a particularly prime example. Read Melanie Philip's book "Londonistan." In it, she explains how Great Britain has become a shadow of herself due to multiculturalism, the kind of multiculturalism that is used to divide a society (a state, a nation) rather than allowed to function as the tool to preserve different cultures, or cultural identities, within a unified society.

In short, multiculturalism has become the weapon used by self-hating white Western bleeding-hearts (leftists, more often than not) in an attempt to make up for their perceived "historical crimes and sins" against non-white cultures. And as such, it will never, ever, work.

Great article by Weston. Scary and true. Do boomers (of which I am one) have the stomach to finally face the truth? We never thought we would be facing these troubles in our retirement years.

None of us wanted it. We used to beleive all you need is love, and in giving peace a chance. Well, we tried to love everyone, and we gave peace a chance, and it hasn't worked. If our generation doesn't take up this fight, it will be forced upon our children.

Excellent work, Mr. Weston. Nice to see another making this argument publicly. Spent the past couple years making this exact argument, to the horror of friends. I just don't think they see it. Husband & I will be much better prepared for this war than they, as we are ready (to be on the front line, even). Thank you for being another to ring the bell in warning.

imnodhimmi said:None of us wanted it. We used to beleive all you need is love, and in giving peace a chance. Well, we tried to love everyone, and we gave peace a chance, and it hasn't worked. If our generation doesn't take up this fight, it will be forced upon our children.

And seeing as how our children are also being brainwashed into believing that all you need is love, and peace at any cost, and all that, I wonder if they will be up to fighting the good fight. I doubt it. Looks like it's going to be Islam time in the future. Glad I won't be here to see that.